@RRRR Mark was trying to break the sensor. :-)

I agree about not looking at an MP4 on scopes. Hence why step 1 is to have original camera files. Eventually he will be able to release the R3Ds if he so chooses to do so. Right now, there is no public version of Redcine-X to open them in, hence no desire to release the R3Ds and have people wonder why they don't work in current Redcine-X.

In regards to highlights, I'll reserve comment until I at least see an R3D or get to test the camera myself.

About DR and the need for lighting. I am a big proponent of getting it right with lighting. Extra dynamic range will be useful, but it still comes down to painting with light if you want the most cinematic results. Show up with a camera and hope for the best often doesn't work in my experience.

I think Dragon will be an improvement over the MX, but it's hard to quantify how big that improvement will be at this point because it's just too early. We need to see final production cameras with new color science implemented in Redcine-X as well as other tools such as Resolve. That is when the complete picture will start to form. Until then, guys like Mark Toia will give us some initial first impressions which we can begin the process of understanding.

I'm going to post something similar to what I did in the BMPCC thread.

If you want to judge the IQ of a camera you must: A: Have the original camera files B: Have the proper tools to playback and manipulate the image C: Know how to read scopes D: Observe the images on a properly calibrated monitor

If I had to guess, some of the posters here might be missing some of those items in their analysis toolkit. That leads to very uninformed observations which spreads FUD on the web.

I suggest that people respect the process and offer analysis that is more useful to the community. You don't have to like a particular camera, just make sure you have reached your conclusions with a logical approach.

In the case of Epic vs Alexa vs F65 vs BMCC these cameras all provide exceptional image quality but IQ is subjective. Also the talent using these cameras is quite vast and experience level varies. There have been some blind tests conducted with high level DPs that have misidentified Alexa and Epic footage that was matched very closely to each other.

Do I think Red footage has flaws? Sure. So do most cameras on the market, including film. That's why choosing a camera and or film stock that is suitable for the style and story is still the way to go. I always recommend people do their own testing and rely less on the internet experts. Not that the information should be ignored, but should instead be a starting point for conducting your own tests, which you can control all of the variables and reach your own conclusions.

Mark Toia is one of the busiest DPs/directors in the world. His approach here was to kick the tires of Dragon in real world scenarios and get some first impressions. the footage you are seeing has not been graded much if at all. that wasn't his goal, he wanted to see what was coming straight out of the camera with a basic LUT applied.

My suggestion, wait until you can get your hands on some R3Ds and then follow the four steps I outlined above. Do it any other way and you are just guessing.

The challenge with 17 stops is in making the image pop; say something rather than just show everything and look like stuff does when you are glancing. I´m sure it will be possible to put all that range into good use, it will require a lot of work though - it´s not like: now when it is there you can just shoot and everything will turn great.

The Hobbit @ 48fps was like those led tv's that goes wild at 600 hertz: telenovelas effect. As is, digital is cold, especially if you want something very clean. I'm on your side about film, and i think all these 4k projectors in theatres are not the best you can get: you miss entirely the analogic process in that way. I prefer a good Arrilaser with a nice film stock to print the digital on, and, if it's possible (it depends on colorist skill in the old school), a last "push" in film development, like Storaro use to do, and he still does even with digital cameras. I really loved The Master (Philip Seymour Hoffman), shot in 65mm. I think that is still a beauty that digital can't achieve.

The high frame rate shots are very very video like, and the normal shots range from film like to video like. There something still not dialed in on this camera or on the workflow.

Yet, imagine the freedom this will give to shoot outdoors without HMI and reflector fills, and to do much quicker setups on set. That alone is potentially revolutionary in the narrative acquisition process.

Ultimately, the delivery medium will probably compress the DR, but not tomorrow's delivery systems. Another future proofing beyond high resolution. But I see this as making filming cheaper, and increasing the shift to post production dailing in of things that would previosuly be determine with lighting,

Dynamic range is impressive, although none of the images really 'speak' to me to use a vague undefined term. I suppose that may come down more to the glass used and how it was graded. It looks like very wide dynamic range DSLR video to me, but I would never mistake it for the elegance of film.

Well, it seems to be up there with the F55, to say the least.